Standard ignorant and hyperbolic discourse about Wall Street. > When faced with illegal or immoral orders, it is the duty of professional soldiers to refuse su

Standard ignorant and hyperbolic discourse about Wall Street. > When faced with illegal or immoral orders, it is the duty of professional soldiers to refuse such orders. When such a refusal occurs, it is followed by thorough investigations, and potentially courts-martial or war crimes prosecutions for those who issue such orders. In the case of the former Wells Fargo employees, the opposite occurred. Imagine the moral and societal hazard if the military permitted such retaliation against those who reported illegal and immoral behaviors. Well's Fargo is a bank that makes money by selling financial products to people including bank accounts and credit cards. To do this they employ salespeople. These salespeople are tasked with selling these products, as much as they can. They have a compliance department that explicitly says "don't lie to people when you sell to them". The salespeople broke those rules in order to meet the sales goals, so they were fired. The way the author writes this article, it's as if they think it is immoral to be a salesman and that the executives of Wells Fargo should be court marshaled for requiring them to sell a lot of things. The analogy, and to equate selling things with war crimes on the battlefield is absurd. > Hedge funds and investment banks utilize high-speed trading to place the individual investor at an insurmountable disadvantage. It's unclear what the author mean's by "high-speed" trading here, I assume they mean high-frequency market making, but most hedge funds are not in high frequency market making business. Does the author know what they are talking about? Probably not. High frequency market-makers like Virtu and Hudson River are in the high-frequency market making business. And it's unclear how high-frequency market making hurts the individual investor, it's much more concrete how high frequency market makers hurt the banks (old-school market makers) and help the individual investor by closing down the bid-ask spread. Even if hedge funds were employing techniques to put an individual investor at a disadvantage, isn't that their job? Hedge funds are in the business because they can presumably make better trades than average, and so anyone who is on the other side of the trades they are making is presumably going to be losing out. This would be like challenging an NFL team to a football game and complaining that their wide receivers are too good athletes. And why should we prioritize the "individual investor" over institutional investors? A pension fund handles money for retired pensioners, while an individual investor might be some dentist day-trader - why should we prioritize his well being over the pensioners? He presumably has enough disposable income already.